2b:null 2c:["$","title",null,{"children":"Gender Finance Scoping | Mattie Price | Observable"}] 31:T98c,The primary source for this data is - as always - the CRS. IATI also provides data, but apart from a few reports (i.e. CGD), most institutions focus on CRS data. When talking about gender-related development finance, most institutions focus on **bilateral ODA**. By this, they mean the flows in the OECD DAC CRS which are both [bilateral allocable](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/5d646dd8-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/5d646dd8-en#section-d1e1573-18bb29ad98) and marked with the [Gender policy marker](https://www.oecd.org/development/gender-development/dac-gender-equality-marker.htm). See this [explanation](https://docs.google.com/document/d/18vAzTHbVqJkaD_LRy8abw5QmogaqTipOvoCwdN_D08M/edit) for more detail on how the gender policy marker works. The OECD produces a range of reports and interactive pages using this data. They provide insights into the share of ODA that has a significant or principal focus on gender, the top donors/recipients/agencies, and how gender finance intersects with other development areas (i.e. economic empowerment, climate change, humanitarian crises, etc): - Regular 'Snapshot' reports, such as the [dev. finance for gender equality and women's empowerment snapshot (2022)](https://web-archive.oecd.org/2022-05-05/630214-Gender_ODA_2022.pdf). They also offer snapshots into more specific areas of gender-related finance like [governance and gender equality in 2021](https://www.oecd.org/dac/oda-governance-gender-equality.pdf) and [Ending violence against women and girls'](https://www.oecd.org/development/gender-development/development-finance-elimination-gender-based-violence.pdf) (PC 15180). - They also provide online interactive graphs similar to what we would produce as a topic page. See the [development for gender equality page](https://www.oecd.org/development/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-topics/development-finance-for-gender-equality-and-women-s-empowerment.htm) and [womens' economic empowerment analysis](https://www.oecd.org/development/womens-economic-empowerment.htm) pages (the latter focussing on specific, economic sector purpose codes). - Reports are produced on the intersection of gender-related finance and [climate change, the environment, and biodiversity](https://www.oecd.org/dac/gender-equality-environment-intersection.pdf) and [responsive climate action](https://www.oecd.org/dac/development-finance-gender-climate-action.pdf). 32:T979,

Year	No. multilaterals applying the Gender marker at least once	Gender-related flows as a share of bilateral allocable flows (commitments)	Gender-related flows as a share of allocable flows (disbursements)
2015	13	17%	12%
2016	14	10%	10%
2017	16	29%	17%
2018	19	40%	22%
2019	20	35%	23%
2020	21	36%	36%
2021	28	40%	41%
2022	31	33%	32%

33:T981,

Year	No. private institutions applying the Gender marker at least once	Gender-related flows as a share of bilateral allocable flows (commitments)	Gender-related flows as a share of allocable flows (disbursements)
2015	8	34%	31%
2016	13	4.0%	4.0%
2017	25	18%	16%
2018	30	20%	13%
2019	29	22%	13%
2020	34	23%	18%
2021	29	25%	18%
2022	31	34%	29%

34:T541,

Type of Finance	Sources	Notes
Bilateral ODA	CRS; IATI	CRS most popular Commitments (never disbursements)
Multilateral ODA	CRS; IATI	Data is limited (but it is improving)
OOFs	CRS	Further scoping required on coverage.
Private finance	CRS	Increased focus but data is still limited
Blended Finance	Survey Data	Data not publicly available.

35:Ta1b,- [AWID](https://www.awid.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/AWID_Research_WITM_Brief_ENG.pdf) uses survey and CRS data to analyse the financing of Women's Rights Organisations in the 'global south'. They use survey data to analyse the budgets of feminist and grassroots organisation, and assess the funding flows from the CRS to assess where the money is coming from. They find 48% of women's rights organisations have an annual budget of less than $30,000, that WROs only recieve 0.13% of total ODA, and 0.4% of gender-related ODA. Producing an analysis like this is very easy, as they have a purpose code for women's rights organisations (15070) in the CRS. - [Shake the Table / Bridgspan](https://www.bridgespan.org/getmedia/b5e15f15-d53d-4fc4-adbf-e74945606e1d/full-report-philanthropy-and-feminist-movements.pdf) also raise concerns over minimal funding to local feminist organisations. These statistics look at both philanthropic giving and support from donors. It looks like most current reports are produced statically. We could build tools to make this analysis update annually and share online on something like a topic page. - [CGD (2024)](https://www.cgdev.org/blog/are-providers-climate-finance-tackling-gender-effectively) have explored the relationship between Gender-related and Climate-related ODA. They focus on the use of markers using CRS data, but also make use of IATI data. - ODI uses the data to look at [trends in development finance for gender (2023)](https://odi.cdn.ngo/media/documents/ODI-Trends_in_development_finance_for_gender.pdf). They outline the risks to gender finance (dilution, distortion, and diversion) and recommend a series of policy recommendations, including increased principal funding, increased diversification in the sectors that mainstream gender ODA, and a rethink of the gender policy marker system (although they also partially praise the climate markers, which are flawed for reason we already know!) - CGD [donor financing for gender equality](https://www.cgdev.org/blog/donor-financing-gender-equality-spending-confusing-receipts) blog (which also uses IATI data). - The [Global Philanthropy Project](https://globalphilanthropyproject.org/2020/11/12/meet-the-moment/) found that organisations supporting the [anti-gender movement](https://globalphilanthropyproject.org/2018/11/29/resistingagi/) received $6.2 billion in revenue in the US over 2008-2017. This was calculated using organisation's budgets, not CRS data. But if these stats are of interest, we could start a discussion on the feasibility of calculating our own figures.36:T7ea,1. **Misses all multilateral flows:** As [ODI state](https://odi.org/en/publications/trends-in-development-finance-for-gender-mapping-risks-and-opportunities-for-funders/), "multilateralism is an important channel for official gender finance, but calculating total investment is not obvious because core funding to UN agencies cannot be traced back to gender equality goals, with the exception perhaps of UN Women, which was established in 2010 as a focal point within the UN system to drive progress on meeting women’s and girls’ needs." 2. **Issues using a marker approach:** The Gender Marker suffers from similar issues to the Climate Markers - the full project is counted regardless of the gender component. However, I feel (**and please, open to discussion**) that this issue is less relevant in the gender finance space. In the climate debate, providers are using the significant marker to (falsely) claim increased spending on combatting climate change. However, in the Gender debate, the presence of the significant marker could be interpreted as successful Gender Mainstreaming within a project. So instead of making pledges/commitments to gender equality, they are saying the projects of value X consider the implications on gender and make at least some financial effort to have a positive impact on gender equality. The counter to this point is it would be better to have a 'gender-related share of budget' value to replace the marker, but the issues we've seen trying to get this in the CFFs suggests this may be a waste of resources. [Oxfam America](https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/are-they-really-gender-equality-projects/) completed significant research on the quality of gender markers. 3. **Measuring outputs vs outcomes:** There are recurring complaints of measuring outputs, not outcomes, when looking at gender-related finance. Does an increase in gender-related funds actually bring us closer to the gender equality targets in SDG5? Something to consider in our analysis.37:T8b5,- No one presents data in disbursements. This is relatively easy to do and could be useful. - No one provides multilateral finance data. I have my reservations of producing any analysis using this data, but the fact that we are missing a huge share of ODA data because multilaterals do not screen for the gender (and climate) markers effectively does feel like a good thing to raise. - The OECD presents good interactive data, and it does look like many NGOs, think-tanks, and other civil society organisations have little trouble using this data. That said, CGD released a [blog](https://www.cgdev.org/blog/are-providers-climate-finance-tackling-gender-effectively) in 2024 that misuses 'sector allocable aid' over 'bilateral allocable aid', so there may be room to bring around new tools to download 'ready-to-analyse' gender-related data to prevent these mistakes. - Analysis of funding towards 'anti-gender' movements? More scoping required into the methodologies here. - Build tools that make applying a gendered lens to specific sectors much more accessible. Many organisations do this kind of analysis (ODI, CGD, AWID, OECD), so could we make it simpler for everyone? Additionally, we have an advantage in this space for two reasons: (1) we (... Jorge) have already provided mappings of purpose codes to more broad sectors, so any tools could easily allow the selection of 'Education' and we can build on analysis completed in the past. (2) We already have the climate finance data - Emily Wigens told me there was interest in the intersection climate finance data with Gender (and health.. and education.. and everything...). If we were to do this kind of cross-sectional analysis, we could then focus on a few particular policy areas that would bring about the most traction. - The GenderNet list of policies appears quite outdated. Clear targets equal accountability. We could complete desk-based research or building a machine learning tool like [climate policy radar](https://labs.climatepolicyradar.org/targets/)? I have never done this before, so the timeframe may be slightly longer (but I am up for it..!) - I agree with Micaela that there is a big story within the financing for local feminist organisations. 38:T6b3, As outlined by the [OECD](https://www.oecd.org/development/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-topics/development-finance-for-gender-equality-and-women-s-empowerment.htm), the sectors which have a larger share of gender-related ODA (as a share of total bilateral allocable ODA to that sector are) are Social Infrastructure (76%), Agriculture (67%), education (67%) and economic infrastructure (55%) and health (51). Sectors with a relatively low share of gender-related ODA include Humanitarian aid (18%) and energy (30%). Sectors with limited gender-focus offer a good opportunity to mobilise more gender-related funding. As [ODI](https://odi.cdn.ngo/media/documents/ODI-Trends_in_development_finance_for_gender.pdf) outline: "[d]eepening engagement with gender beyond traditional development sectors such as education and economic empowerment into climate and sustainability arenas offers an opportunity to engage new actors, including environmental and women’s human rights defenders, and find common cause with climate activists. It will take a bit longer to integrate in the CFF code, so I am afraid I cannot do this right now. I am certain we will be able to produce a unique piece of analysis using our climate finance files data and the intersection of climate finance with gender. However, the reasoning for producing the climate finance files was to prevent over counting of climate finance. For gender-related ODA, this is less relevant, as projects are understood to have a gendered element, and are rarely framed as entirely "Gender specific" (unless principally marked). I have produced the following treemap of sector breakdowns for each donor (showing the absolute amounts). 39:T22cb,

ONE Market	Policies	Documents
Canada	Follows a feminist international assistance policy. Focusses primarily on gender equality/women's empowerment which is integrated into all action areas. Other action areas are: health dignity, inclusive growth, environment, inclusive governance, and peace and security. State: "we will ensure that by 2021-22 no less than 95 percent of Canada’s bilateral international development assistance initiatives will target or integrate gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls." See graph below for time series data. Looks like Canada has dropped from around 90% of bilateral allocable ODA being gender-related in 2021, to about 62% in 2022.	Canada's Feminist International Assistance Policy (2017)
European Institutions	The EU initiated the Spotlight Initiative, a joint EU-UN global programme with an overall EU allocation of EUR 500 million to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls. In the EU’s external policies, gender mainstreaming is used in the budget process through the commitment of ensuring that 85% of all new programmes contribute to gender equality and women’s empowerment. Currently, ~47% of EU bilateral allocable ODA has a gender element.	The Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025
France	French feminist diplomacy, officially launched in 2019 at the G7 Summit in Biarritz, adopts a cross-cutting approach, integrating the fight for women’s rights in various sectors such as climate, sexual and reproductive rights, education, the fight against gender-based violence and education. France has increased the budget of its support fund for feminist organizations (FSOF) to 250 million euros over 5 years (2023-2027). There is a new international strategy for gender equality scheduled for the second half of 2024. In the past, France has committed EUR 400 million for sexual and reproductive rights and health and the right to freely dispose of one's body, and 50% of the 333 million euros allocated within the framework of the Global Partnership for Education in favor of girls' education. France has committed to ensuring that by 2025, 75% of projects financed by French public aid will promote gender equality. Dropped to 25% in 2022 from 37% in 2021.	French Feminist Diplomacy (Summary) Useful summary
Germany	In 2023, Germany adopted a feminist foreign policy. Germany’s guidelines focus on three overarching objectives: equal rights for women and girls, the equitable representation of women in all areas of society, and equal access to resources for women and girls (in short: rights, representation, and resources). To advance these objectives, Germany will focus on: Gender Mainstreaming: Integrate a focus on gender equality and women's rights across within core areas peace and security, humanitarian response, human rights policy, climate diplomacy and external energy policy, foreign trade and investment, and cultural and public diplomacy (international democracy support is curiously absent from the list). Gender Budgetting: Hit 85% significant funding and 8% as a principal objective. This would be significant progress on the current levels of 45% and 2.4% respectively. Internal Diversity: Aim to increase the share of women in senior positions, promote nondiscimination, and cultivate internal expertise on gender and diversity issues, within the German Foreign Policy apparatus.	Very good summary of Germany (with comparison to other countries Feminist Foreign Policy Guidelines
Italy	Italy, governed by a far-right coalition since 2022, shows notable regressions in the rights of women and LGBTI+ minorities, with a government that is predominantly "masculinist, conservative, homophobic and xenophobic". Italy has not committed itself to a feminist foreign policy. The new national plan for the Women, Peace and Security Agenda (2020-2024) is compromised by the government’s anti-migration policy, which exacerbates the vulnerability of migrant people in the Mediterranean, particularly women. Gender-related ODA's share of Italian bilateral ODA has halved from 42% in 2019 to 21% in 2022.	Useful summary
United Kingdom	Channel activity into three inter-related themes (the 3 E's): (1) Educating girls, (2) Empowering women (politically, economically, socially), and (3) Ending Violence. To champion the three E's the FCDO aim to meet 3 goals: 1. Drive the conversation: Run a high-profile global campaign. Use standing within institutions and multilaterals (i.e. UN HRC, UN General Assembly) to champion women's rights. 2. Lead by example: "Commit to at least 80% of FCDO’s bilateral aid programmes having a focus on gender equality by 2030 (using OECD DAC markers). We will also increase the proportion of our International Climate Finance (ICF) that will be gender marked." Also aims to support grassroots WROs, including through a new flagship prgram to provide core, flexible, multiyear funding to grassroots WROs. 3. Lead through knowledge: Champion a research base in areas including 'what works' analysis, evidence base on reducing GBV, expanding women's voices, jobs and working opportunities.	International women and girls strategy 2023-2030
United States	Operating units are "strongly encouraged to assess their portfolios annually using a gender equality marker." There are no set gender as a share of bilateral ODA targets. Key Policies and strategies include: - Global Women's economic security strategy (2022): includes promoting economic competitiveness, reducing wage gaps, advancing infrastructure, valuing domestic work, and more. - Strategy to prevent and respond to GBV globally(2022) - Strategy on Women, Peace and Security (2019): advances women's participation in the prevention and resolving of conflicts. - Empower adolescent Girls (2016) - Promoting and Supporting the inclusion of LGBT individuals (2014): currently being updated to protect the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals in all programming. - Ending child marriage and meeting the needs of married children (2012)	2023 USAID Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Policy
World Bank (for MDB campaign)		Publish what you fund summary

3a:[{"id":"2062848d7976eec5cb95d4478f936dda7708dad59b725dccefc06bac25cdc60776ee6fbe422dd9f0a2aeeb2f8c1d3a128daa3153b41de9e6bbeda8fb8c9c4fe8","href":"https://static.observableusercontent.com/files/2062848d7976eec5cb95d4478f936dda7708dad59b725dccefc06bac25cdc60776ee6fbe422dd9f0a2aeeb2f8c1d3a128daa3153b41de9e6bbeda8fb8c9c4fe8","name":"total_by_country@3.csv","type":"text/csv","lastModified":1710335468945.727,"size":1478},{"id":"8769d047bf579874e2c289e5d8018ab1d6ff77bd46a3e8b6c3995873c171df88a6c3f163a08d19e4ac048c60e585c494fe823e56f81197737da1c800395e77eb","href":"https://static.observableusercontent.com/files/8769d047bf579874e2c289e5d8018ab1d6ff77bd46a3e8b6c3995873c171df88a6c3f163a08d19e4ac048c60e585c494fe823e56f81197737da1c800395e77eb","name":"total_dac_diffeence_2013_2022@1.csv","type":"text/csv","lastModified":1710335432034.432,"size":2110},{"id":"1b673b8d4daa73648b6e8df729fdb05d4aac3e03f13c9cc3cc8487da500e201049235f3678347d18fb6a88a846ce380f58d3bd4c3853df07f3c191a85b8e5a33","href":"https://static.observableusercontent.com/files/1b673b8d4daa73648b6e8df729fdb05d4aac3e03f13c9cc3cc8487da500e201049235f3678347d18fb6a88a846ce380f58d3bd4c3853df07f3c191a85b8e5a33","name":"total_by_country@4.csv","type":"text/csv","lastModified":1710499150368.159,"size":1490},{"id":"0f1ce6f7ba55a332f602b0e393d7d547905fb8cdda895062e94eb3ac1fce5608396ff54f613845870c9e3b508224269aadb6e8d65f2eb8a1ed67fdac6a26af7b","href":"https://static.observableusercontent.com/files/0f1ce6f7ba55a332f602b0e393d7d547905fb8cdda895062e94eb3ac1fce5608396ff54f613845870c9e3b508224269aadb6e8d65f2eb8a1ed67fdac6a26af7b","name":"total_dac_diffeence_2013_2022@2.csv","type":"text/csv","lastModified":1710499322369.255,"size":2120},{"id":"07aa2a7c3cc9f5b8b27075cb289f6b2cc25af5ab83f8b070f85b49be9ef83f6a68771cc56f1da009c6478407e9d992992845f72aed6cc5514be592b6762cc0f5","href":"https://static.observableusercontent.com/files/07aa2a7c3cc9f5b8b27075cb289f6b2cc25af5ab83f8b070f85b49be9ef83f6a68771cc56f1da009c6478407e9d992992845f72aed6cc5514be592b6762cc0f5","name":"share_of_gender_oda_to_african_wros.csv","type":"text/csv","lastModified":1710504710876.014,"size":1799},{"id":"0f36c982d2a80092bbf7ec18aa7b47f44667065c72f6088cccdabca3faa7bf5ff5a1dbd85cdc5ec505baf63c824f3107fd59689888849796ce284d81f421359e","href":"https://static.observableusercontent.com/files/0f36c982d2a80092bbf7ec18aa7b47f44667065c72f6088cccdabca3faa7bf5ff5a1dbd85cdc5ec505baf63c824f3107fd59689888849796ce284d81f421359e","name":"share_of_gender_oda_to_african_wros@1.csv","type":"text/csv","lastModified":1710505649984.766,"size":1738},{"id":"35d2bd62fba92048b09effe89608fa7e596d83b6b454878a13d511a4096a74df3cac451f09626a02b86d61ded79990c0c8ae251f2e5f03f2451e082524a9b069","href":"https://static.observableusercontent.com/files/35d2bd62fba92048b09effe89608fa7e596d83b6b454878a13d511a4096a74df3cac451f09626a02b86d61ded79990c0c8ae251f2e5f03f2451e082524a9b069","name":"gender_related_oda_by_sector.csv","type":"text/csv","lastModified":1710513738363.499,"size":26849},{"id":"c362cb81f234602c2e8baf0067a4d431122fdfaa8d3d284af82540d51dff8c7bb5e639f665d09193d8032727cdb8525c9c9bd6d0b2b618e13ecccbdb12a1d5ea","href":"https://static.observableusercontent.com/files/c362cb81f234602c2e8baf0067a4d431122fdfaa8d3d284af82540d51dff8c7bb5e639f665d09193d8032727cdb8525c9c9bd6d0b2b618e13ecccbdb12a1d5ea","name":"gender_related_oda_by_sector@1.csv","type":"text/csv","lastModified":1710518701870.263,"size":37346}] 2f:{"id":"b97f5fce7cbffec2","slug":null,"title":"Gender Finance Scoping","thumbnail":"3923dff9092b2d8ecfd00e04a4e8e3a032109cfcf8069f5feea2958641c32061","access_level":"public","create_time":"$D2024-03-05T11:05:27.755Z","update_time":"$D2024-03-20T15:23:40.945Z","view_time":null,"first_public_time":"$D2024-03-08T13:40:38.983Z","fork":false,"stars":0,"starred":false,"owner":{"type":"team","id":"fe7526de7c22ac1f","login":"matt-price","name":"Mattie Price","avatar_url":"https://avatars-next.observableusercontent.com/c46d74e258178addbc30a7722da32080cb2dc57933a2a0446b21c782c4cb977d","tier":"starter_2024"},"version":729,"publish_version":null,"role":null,"authored":false,"authors":[{"type":"individual","id":"3b1eb0227eec8660","login":"mattie-p","name":"Mattie Price","avatar_url":"https://avatars-next.observableusercontent.com/a74ad82605fb316a1a406dba2a56b49a4913df4e18ed488975767ad70044d0ef","tier":null}],"members":[{"type":"individual","id":"3b1eb0227eec8660","login":"mattie-p","name":"Mattie Price","avatar_url":"https://avatars-next.observableusercontent.com/a74ad82605fb316a1a406dba2a56b49a4913df4e18ed488975767ad70044d0ef","tier":null,"role":"editor"},{"type":"team","id":"fe7526de7c22ac1f","login":"matt-price","name":"Mattie Price","avatar_url":"https://avatars-next.observableusercontent.com/c46d74e258178addbc30a7722da32080cb2dc57933a2a0446b21c782c4cb977d","tier":"starter_2024","role":"editor"}],"comments":[],"custom_thumbnail":false,"trashed":false,"lapsed":null,"subscribed":null,"forks":0,"collection":null,"type":"notebook","body":{"title":"Gender Finance Scoping","cells":[{"id":0,"value":"\n# Gender Finance Scoping","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":19,"value":"_NB: This document is for scoping purpose and is continually updated as we learn more about the Gender Finance data landscape. Please add anything you feel would be useful to this exercise as comments. _\n \n ","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":248,"value":"So many amazing organisations continually produce analysis and reports on financing for Gender Equality. How can ONE build something that fills a gap and is so useful that people continually come back to it over and over again?","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":9,"value":"To answer this question, we first need to understand the current Gender Finance Data Landscape:\n- What sources are there for Gender Finance data? Who produces them?\n- Who uses these data sources? What are they used for? \n- How effectively does the current gender finance landscape provide support to the sector? What improvements could be made?\n","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":28,"value":"## The Current Gender Finance Landscape","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":109,"value":"### Official Development Assistance","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":65,"value":"$31","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":227,"value":"Overall, the OECD produces thorough and clear top-line gender-related ODA data. I do not believe there is any value in building a Topic Page that repeats this analysis as these top line figures are already very accessible. ","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":45,"value":"One potential avenue is **multilateral ODA**. In the past, the use of the gender policy marker in multilaterals has been so poor that multilateral flows have been ignored altogether. The primary issues being (1) many multilaterals do not apply the gender marker at all, and (2) the ones that do screen for the marker do not screen consistently across all projects. As a result, the OECD focuses all their analyses on flows from DAC donors. ","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":264,"value":"I felt it was worth checking if these issues are still the case. The table below shows some quick analysis of (1) the number of multilaterals that apply the gender-policy marker (at least once), and (2) the gender-related share of total allocable ODA for these gender-marking multilaterals since 2015 in both commitments and disbursements:","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":47,"value":"$32","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"html","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":50,"value":"^{_Note: The shares in this table are calculated using only multilaterals who have applied the gender policy marker at least once._}","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":183,"value":"As expected, the early years see very few multilaterals applying the marker, and a share that low suggests that the markers were not applied consistently. NB: of course, there is the case that the gender-related share was actually that low in those years, but we can't be sure enough to produce a piece of analysis on it.\n\nIn more recent years both the number of multilaterals and the share of gender-related finance has increased, suggesting some improvement. My fear is if the OECD deemed this data high enough quality to use, they would use it. We could focus on a few multilaterals that we believe are accurately applying the gender marker, but ultimately I think we should avoid multilateral data for now. **Would be great to hear thoughts on this**.","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":255,"value":"### Other official flows","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":257,"value":"The CRS contains OOFs data. We included this in our climate finance analysis. Most other organisations focus on solely ODA, but we could explore the possibility of adding this data if required. ","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":177,"value":"### Private Finance (of all forms)","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":210,"value":"The OECD argues that achieving gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls in developing countries requires significantly increased investments. ODA will play a central role - especially in LDCs - but the OECD is also expanding the long-standing ODA work to also look at the quality and quantity of private development flows, and flows by non-DAC donors. ","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":181,"value":"Some private donors in the CRS also use the gender equality marker. I am unsure if we should use this data. If we feel there is a significant value add, then I will do further scoping to see how feasible/credible any analysis would be. It's worth noting that a lot of private finance data came from surveys of WROs budgets (i.e. what share of their revenues were funded by private philanthropy or other private sources). \n\nThe table below shows the number of private donors that apply at least one marker, and the corresponding share of allocable flows. Fluctuations imply ","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":192,"value":"$33","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"html","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":287,"value":"The OECD has also completed some analysis on **blended Finance**. This information has all been scraped using surveys, with the survey results not publicly available.","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":281,"value":"### Overview","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":283,"value":"These funding sources and datasets are summarised below:","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":285,"value":"$34","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"html","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":74,"value":"## Who uses this data (outside of the OECD)?","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":171,"value":"$35","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":231,"value":"## How well does available data answer policy questions?","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":233,"value":"Firstly, the data struggles to answer key questions in financing progress towards gender equality for a variety of reasons:","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":161,"value":"$36","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":302,"value":"Secondly, it is particularly hard to see what questions this data is meant to be answering! Only on the OECD's GenderNet did I see an attempt to compile [DAC members Gender Policies](https://www.oecd.org/dac/gender-development/dac-members-gender-equality-strategies.htm). Without a clear understanding of targets, it is impossible to effectively use data to hold governments accountable. ","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":235,"value":"All this to answer...","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":124,"value":"## Where could ONE add value?","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":126,"value":"$37","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":312,"value":"## Scoping Possible Research Areas","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":340,"value":"### Disbursements vs Commitments","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":547,"value":"There is not a particularly shocking relationship between commitments and disbursements for gender-related ODA over the last decade (2013-2022). Only France and EU Institutions within the ONE markets show an unusual relationship. See a summary of the major differences below:\n1. The UK: Disbursements actually exceed commitments, but this is down to some funky accounting surrounding hitting 0.5% of GNI targets.\n2. EU institutions (66%): I am unsure why this is the case. When you include Other Official Flows (not ODA), disbursements are closer to commitments. Would need to do more research into this.\n3. France (66%): This could be explored. \n4. Korea (49%) and Japan (62%): Both not ONE market.\n\nOverall, the total for DAC donors comes in at $412 billion for commitments, and $364 billion for disbursements. This means disbursements are 88% of the size of commitments, which is a reasonable difference over this time period. \n\nAs it stands, I do not think this is evidence enough to make this a large research piece.","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":706,"value":"#### Exploratory Graph: DAC donor Commitments vs Disbursements over the last decade (2013-2022 aggregate)","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":519,"value":"Plot.plot({\n inset: 30, \n grid: true, \n marks: [\n Plot.line(\n [\n {x: 0, y: 0},\n {x: 70000, y: 70000}],\n {\n x: \"x\",\n y: \"y\",\n opacity:0.7, \n strokeDasharray:\"2,5\"\n }\n ),\n Plot.dot(\n commitments_vs_disbursements,\n {\n anchor: \"bottom\",\n x: \"crs_gender_total_flow_commitment_gross\",\n y: \"crs_gender_total_flow_disbursement_gross\",\n tip: true,\n title: d => `Donor: ${d.donor_name}\\n\\nCommitments: ${d.crs_gender_total_flow_commitment_gross}\\nDisbursements: ${d.crs_gender_total_flow_disbursement_gross}`\n }\n ),\n Plot.text(\n [{x: 25000, y: 55000, text: \"↑ disbursements exceed commitments\"}, {x: 50000, y: 10000, text: \"↓ commitments exceed disbursements\"}],\n {x: \"x\", y: \"y\", text: \"text\", dy: -10}\n )\n ],\n x: \n {\"domain\": [0,70000],\n ticks: 4,\n label: \"Commitments\",\n },\n y:\n {\"domain\": [0,70000],\n ticks: 4,\n label: \"Disbursements\",}\n \n})","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":723,"value":"If the percentage difference between donors for gender-related activities differed to all other bilateral activities, we could definitely produce a story with that surrounding non-gender specific projects seemingly being prioritised over gender-related projects. (looking into this now) ","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":565,"value":"### Share of Gender Related ODA to African Women's Rights Organisations (WROs)","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":568,"value":"There is potential for a story here. These calculations involved a fair amount of code that need to be checked, but the results are in a similar ballpark to what was published by [AWID](https://www.awid.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/AWID_Research_WITM_Brief_ENG.pdf) previously. ","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":588,"value":"This methodology takes all gender-related ODA disbursements over 2013-2022, filters for flows to the purpose code 15170 ('Women's rights organisations and movements, and government institutions') and African countries/regions, and divides that sum by total Gender-related ODA. The result is around 0.4% of all Gender-related ODA going to WROs in Africa. ","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":585,"value":"#### Exploratory Graph: Share of Gender-related ODA to African WROs over 2013-2022 (aggregated)","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":573,"value":"Plot.plot({\n marks: [\n Plot.barX(african_wros_share_total_gender_oda, {\n x: \"african_wro_share_total_gender_oda\",\n y: \"donor_name\",\n sort: {y: \"x\", reverse: true},\n fill: \"#10827b\",\n tip: true,\n title: d => `Donor: ${d.donor_name}\\n\\nShare of Gender-related ODA to African WROs: ${parseFloat(d.african_wro_share_total_gender_oda).toFixed(2)}%\\n\\nODA to African WROs: ${parseFloat(d.total_oda_to_african_wro).toFixed(2)}\\nTotal Gender-related ODA: ${parseFloat(d.total_gender_related_oda).toFixed(2)}`\n }),\n Plot.ruleX([0], {stroke: \"#10827b\"})\n ],\n marginLeft: 120,\n x: {\n label: \"Share of Total Gender-related ODA to African WROs (%)\",\n grid: true,\n },\n marginBottom: 35,\n y: {\n label: \"Donor Name\"\n },\n style: {\n fontSize: 12,\n fontFamily: \"Arial, sans-serif\"\n },\n width: 800,\n height: 600,\n});\n","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":592,"value":"### Sector Analysis\n","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":594,"value":"$38","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":625,"value":"#### Click through graphs to see sector analysis.... \n#### NOTE: These are explanatory graphs for us to quickly see all the data. These are not for publishing!!","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":635,"value":"html`

\n`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":552,"value":"### International Gender Equality Policies by DAC donors","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":699,"value":"Feminist international assistance policies offer a great way to introduce accountability into our research. Many of ONE's markets have specific gender mainstreaming targets. \n\nThe definition of gender mainstreaming within international assistance is broad. Sometimes it refers to simply recognising/considering the gender impacts of a project, which may be negative. Other donors understand gender mainstreaming to mean all initiatives target or integrate gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls - i.e. they have a significant marker in the CRS. Canada follows the latter and sets an ambitious 95% of all bilateral ODA to target gender equality and empower women and girls. \n\nThe issue with such targets is many projects inherently cannot have a gender focus and therefore will not receive a gender policy marker. With this in mind, targets as high as 95% is quite unrealistic. ","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":555,"value":"The below table offers a summary of each ONE's donor markets international gender assistance policies:","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":557,"value":"$39","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"html","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":685,"value":"html`

\n`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":540,"value":"## Annex","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":542,"value":"### Donor Country totals, including DAC total (2013-2022)","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":369,"value":"await FileAttachment(\"total_dac_diffeence_2013_2022@2.csv\").csv({typed: \"auto\"})","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"","database":"$undefined"},{"id":527,"value":"commitments_vs_disbursements = FileAttachment(\"total_by_country@4.csv\").csv()","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":571,"value":"african_wros_share_total_gender_oda = FileAttachment(\"share_of_gender_oda_to_african_wros@1.csv\").csv()","pinned":true,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":590,"value":"sector_analysis = FileAttachment(\"gender_related_oda_by_sector.csv\").csv()","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"},{"id":614,"value":"{\n // Function to load the Flourish script dynamically\n function loadFlourishScript() {\n const scriptId = 'flourish-embed-script'; // Unique ID for the script element\n\n // Remove any existing script to avoid duplicates\n const existingScript = document.getElementById(scriptId);\n if (existingScript) {\n existingScript.remove();\n }\n\n // Create a new script element\n const script = document.createElement('script');\n script.id = scriptId;\n script.src = \"https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js\";\n document.head.appendChild(script);\n }\n\n loadFlourishScript(); // Call the function to load the script\n \n // Observable requires an explicit return for cells that execute JavaScript\n return \"Flourish script loaded or reloaded.\";\n}\n","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs","author":"$undefined","summary":"$undefined","output":"$undefined","database":"$undefined"}],"files":"$W3a","stdlib":"1","titling":"auto"}} 30:"$2f:body"